<div dir="ltr">+1 to refocus at least one part of the IGF on issues of concern to developing countries<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div>/t</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Fouad Bajwa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com" target="_blank">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Jeremy,<br>
<br>
Thanks for putting together this important submission and taking out<br>
the time needed from your busy schedule on behalf of the group.<br>
<br>
Where I am very comfortable of most of the text, I believe there is an<br>
evident need to voice developing country concerns. The notion of human<br>
rights varies in different developing contexts and regions and<br>
especially in the muslim world where there is a continuous challenge<br>
to understand the pluralism online and its contextual impacts on<br>
society, socio-religion, socio-culture, economic and political<br>
environments.<br>
<br>
What has been happening in the Middle East and the Youtube and<br>
frequent bans of other content in Pakistan are examples of the<br>
pluralism and the struggle to come to terms with. As such issues have<br>
been covered during BestBits and other workshops occasionally at IGF<br>
and regional IGFs, it would be prudent to help bring the IGF focus<br>
back to the developing context and reducing the talk-shop and<br>
defensive tactics of the develop world lobby groups, interest groups<br>
and private sector. Developing world participation is still a<br>
challenge and there really haven't been visible efforts beyond remote<br>
participation and some fellowship programs to improve the situation.<br>
Somehow I am able to draw such a view from the present text.<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> I am offering this as the basis for a proposed joint submission to the IGF<br>
> on proposals for the 2014 meeting. I will put it up on a pad for<br>
> amendments, but I'm mailing it around for initial comments first.<br>
><br>
> Whilst the preamble is new, for the recommendations I've tried to draw on<br>
> and summarise the main points of previous papers or submissions taking stock<br>
> of the IGF including "Notes on an IGF Plus" that was contributed to our Bali<br>
> meeting. It goes beyond fiddling with the themes, to suggest some of the<br>
> more significant changes that the IGF will need to become more useful. We<br>
> do not need to achieve a full consensus on this, but as many of you as<br>
> possible should be able to support it.<br>
><br>
> The IGF has always struck a balance between continuity and incremental<br>
> improvement in its themes and format. But overall, over nine years since<br>
> the first meeting in 2006, whilst the names of themes and sessions formats<br>
> have changed, there has been relatively little change in their substance.<br>
> The IGF is still a discontinuous, face-to-face, four day meeting, composed<br>
> of overlapping main sessions and workshops. For those who do not admit of<br>
> gaps in current Internet governance arrangements or do not desire for those<br>
> gaps to be filled by a natively multi-stakeholder institution, the IGF's<br>
> resistance to change is neither a problem, nor a coincidence.<br>
><br>
> But in the wake of revelations of major systemic flaws in present<br>
> arrangements that have enabled systematic human rights abuses of Internet<br>
> users, the recognition of governance gaps has become more widespread and<br>
> inspired more urgency for significant reform. This has fuelled discussions<br>
> outside of the IGF, such as the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation<br>
> and the Brazil Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet<br>
> Governance, yet in those discussions, the possibility of a reformed IGF<br>
> taking a more significant role in future Internet governance arrangements<br>
> continues to come up.<br>
><br>
> The IGF is challenged to respond to this call for more substantial reform to<br>
> its processes, and there is no better time to do this than in preparation<br>
> for its ninth meeting in Istanbul in September 2014, following on from the<br>
> Brazil meeting, and heading towards its second review by the UN General<br>
> Assembly. With an entirely new IGF MAG also in place for 2014, the<br>
> opportunity exists for a fresh start, in which a number of unchallenged<br>
> assumptions about how the IGF should operate can be critically examined<br>
> again, and new ideas tried out. Yet none of the suggestions for reform<br>
> given here are actually new. Several of them have been made every year<br>
> since the IGF's formation in 2006, or earlier, but have never been adopted<br>
> before now. The following are actionable immediately, without any need for<br>
> change to the IGF's mandate:<br>
><br>
> Themes<br>
><br>
> The main theme of the 2014 IGF should be to discuss, and if appropriate<br>
> affirm and commit to implementing the recommendations from the Brazil<br>
> Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance.<br>
> In general, the IGF should address policy questions that are controversial<br>
> and/or time-critical, and that currently lack any other multi-stakeholder<br>
> mechanism for global coordination. It should avoid themes that are too<br>
> broadly framed like "openness" and "security" that are not grounded in any<br>
> specific real-life context.<br>
> Themes and outputs should be explicitly shared between the global IGF and<br>
> the regional and national IGFs, so that they can feed into and reinforce<br>
> each other, without this detracting from the ability of the latter to also<br>
> deal with more specialised regional and national issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Session formats<br>
><br>
> To make the IGF more practically useful, designated workshops should be<br>
> dedicated to developing non-binding opinions, recommending policy principles<br>
> that stakeholders can follow to address pressing current issues. Workshop<br>
> report formats should be standardised so that these recommendations, how<br>
> they were arrived at, and any areas of divergence, can be easily<br>
> communicated.<br>
> There should be a reduction in the number of parallel workshops, to a more<br>
> manageable number of purposeful workshops with more focus on the main themes<br>
> selected for the meeting.<br>
> Main sessions can and should also be used to develop outputs on the most<br>
> important issues of cross-cutting importance. A number of Best Bits<br>
> participants described one simple way in which such a session could work, in<br>
> a statement issued on 20 May 2013 that is available at<br>
> <a href="http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/igf-opinions/</a>. Speed dialogues were another method<br>
> considered by the MAG in the past, but never tried.<br>
> To that end, main sessions and workshops should be separated. When these<br>
> overlap each other, it becomes impossible for all interested IGF<br>
> participants to join together to address important shared issues in an<br>
> outcome-oriented, deliberative plenary session.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Online deliberation<br>
><br>
> The IGF should address its incapacity to sustain a work programme between<br>
> meetings. A step towards this can be made very easily by offering IGF<br>
> participants, when registering for the meeting or following it remotely, the<br>
> opportunity to join an online collaborative platform for interacting with<br>
> other participants throughout the year on issues of shared concern.<br>
> Such a reform would add much value for online participants, essentially<br>
> providing an online and intersessional equivalent of the annual IGF meeting.<br>
> Currently, online participants have little incentive to invest in the IGF,<br>
> because they are not granted the same status as those who attend the<br>
> face-to-face meetings.<br>
> Data from the IGF (including calendar data, publicly-available participant<br>
> data, meeting transcripts, and working documents) should all be made<br>
> available in open data formats.<br>
> It is vital that the development of the IGF's online platform be adequately<br>
> resourced. Even so, it would only incur a small fraction of the expense of<br>
> the annual meeting, and need not be elaborate: for example, in other<br>
> Internet governance institutions, participants are encouraged to join<br>
> mailing lists, whereas most IGF participants are never offered that<br>
> opportunity. Whilst individual stakeholders have attempted to provide<br>
> community-based platforms for the IGF in the past, these have not been<br>
> supported or publicised by the Secretariat.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Management structure<br>
><br>
> The Secretariat and the MAG conceived as a programme committee, are not<br>
> sufficient high level structures for the IGF. In particular the<br>
> reappointment of a Special Advisor as Chair is important to provide a<br>
> charismatic public face for the IGF as well as a formal interface with the<br>
> United Nations system and other high-level stakeholder representatives. A<br>
> Special Advisor will also make it easier to attract funding for the event,<br>
> and to provide leadership as the IGF undergoes necessary changes.<br>
> The Tunis Agenda called for the IGF to have a bureau, which was never formed<br>
> for fear that this connoted an intergovernmental governing structure.<br>
> Whilst the name is not important, there is no warrant for the MAG to be<br>
> limited to the role of a programme committee, as it is now. It is also<br>
> important for a multi-stakeholder committee of the IGF to perform<br>
> substantive tasks such as:<br>
><br>
> liaising with external bodies including national and regional IGFs (pursuant<br>
> to IGF mandate 72(c));<br>
> defining orphan issues and other areas in need of research or deliberation;<br>
> preparing or approving balanced briefing materials on issues to be addressed<br>
> by the IGF;<br>
> assessing the extent of consensus reached on proposed IGF outputs presented<br>
> at a main session;<br>
> reviewing and ensure the accountability of all fora involved in Internet<br>
> governance (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(i));<br>
> establishing ad hoc working groups; and<br>
> preparing an annual report.<br>
><br>
> For some of these tasks, it may be that smaller working groups of the larger<br>
> MAG could perform them more efficiently than the full MAG. For others, the<br>
> more organisational tasks should be offloaded to the Secretariat, allowing<br>
> the MAG to perform more of a steering and oversight role.<br>
> The MAG representatives should be appointed directly by the stakeholder<br>
> groups without the intermediation of the UN Secretary General. Whilst the<br>
> involvement of the UN was important to bootstrap the fledgling IGF, it can<br>
> now stand on its own two feet and appoint its own representatives, through<br>
> processes devolved to the stakeholder groups themselves.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Funding<br>
><br>
> A more flexible mechanism for funding the IGF is needed. The terms and<br>
> conditions on which UN DESA accepts contributions to the IGF are<br>
> unfavourable to donors, they lack transparency, and also limit the ability<br>
> of participants to contribute small sums. There is no reason why a pool of<br>
> funding separate to that administered by UN DESA could not be set up and<br>
> administered transparently by a multi-stakeholder working group under the<br>
> MAG's oversight.<br>
> Host country agreements should be made public, and host countries should be<br>
> permitted to open tenders for non-security-essential services publicly,<br>
> rather than being required to take these from UN DESA.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The deadline is 10 February 2014. Please send your initial comments and<br>
> then I'll put this up on a pad.<br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Dr Jeremy Malcolm<br>
> Senior Policy Officer<br>
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers<br>
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East<br>
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,<br>
> Malaysia<br>
> Tel: <a href="tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599" value="+60377261599">+60 3 7726 1599</a><br>
><br>
> WCRD 2014 - Fix Our Phone Rights! | <a href="http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights" target="_blank">http://consint.info/fix-our-phone-rights</a><br>
><br>
> @Consumers_Int | <a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org" target="_blank">www.consumersinternational.org</a> |<br>
> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational" target="_blank">www.facebook.com/consumersinternational</a><br>
><br>
> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless<br>
> necessary.<br>
><br>
> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to<br>
> enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see<br>
> <a href="http://jere.my/l/8m" target="_blank">http://jere.my/l/8m</a>.<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div>> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Regards.<br>
--------------------------<br>
Fouad Bajwa<br>
ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor<br>
My Blog: Internet's Governance: <a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
Follow my Tweets: <a href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br>
</font></span><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>